Question: Compare the four traditional types of philosophical rationales for sentencing with the two most recent approaches. What are the main differences between the two categories?

Expert answer

The traditional philosophical rationales for sentencing can be broadly classified into four main categories: retributivism, deterrence, rehabilitation, and incapacitation. Retributivism is based on the premise that criminals deserve to be punished in proportion to the severity of their crimes. Deterrence seeks to discourage potential offenders from committing crimes by making the consequences of being caught and convicted far greater than the benefits of crime. Rehabilitation attempts to reform offenders so that they can reintegrate into society and lead productive, law-abiding lives. Incapacitation removes dangerous criminals from society so that they can no longer pose a threat to public safety.

The two most recent approaches to sentencing are restorative justice and transformative justice. Restorative justice focuses on repairing the harm caused by crime and restoring relationships between victims, offenders, and the community. Transformative justice seeks to address the underlying causes of crime and transform both individuals and society as a whole.

The main differences between the two categories of sentencing philosophies are that retributivism, deterrence, rehabilitation, and incapacitation all seek to punish offenders, while restorative justice and transformative justice emphasize repairing the harm caused by crime and preventing future crime. In addition, while traditional approaches to sentencing typically view offenders as bad people who need to be punished or reformed, restorative and transformative approaches view them as human beings who have been harmed by the experience of crime and who have the potential to change for the better.

Which of these approaches to sentencing do you think is most effective? Why?

I believe that the most effective approach to sentencing depends on the specific situation and the type of crime committed. For example, if someone has committed a violent crime, I think it is important that they are incapacitated so that they cannot hurt anyone else. However, if someone has committed a non-violent crime, I think rehabilitation or restorative justice may be more effective in helping them to reformed and become productive members of society. Ultimately, I believe that the best approach to sentencing is one that is tailored to the individual offender and the specific circumstances of their crime.